08-22-2016, 08:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-22-2016, 09:05 PM by Paul Bardunias.)
(08-22-2016, 08:03 PM)JaM Wrote: wait, so you say push would start only after shields are against each other?
btw my point was about different vectors, shield is not flat, opposing shield neither, so vector of your group pushing would apply at different place than vector of opposing force. (unless forces are perfectly synchronized with each file perfectly against each other)
yes, but if they are just pushing, they are not endangered.. so they have no reason to start rout... if anybody would have that reason, it would be those men in front rank, not those in the rear...
Yes, front rankers might push against each other and shield-bash etc. when they first come to grips, but othismos only starts after shields are pressed together. Then ranks pack in behind the men who are already leaning against each other.
The thing with the vectors is that they are countered by vectors just as complicated, so the result is a wash and not much different than a single file against another file. The caveat to this is that the more complexity you add, the more you might get freak shock waves that lift men off their feet, etc.
The reason they break is that they know the front is losing. There are many cues that pass back in the ranks to make this clear. The last guy does not need to see the front rank to know a panic is close, he just needs to see the man in front, who also sees the man in front- eventually the second rank man in the one who assesses the front ranker. The whole "feel" of the phalanx changes when its losing, and giving ground is a pretty big indicator. If the unit gets to a point where all ranks want to rout, only the rear few have the freedom to do so. This is why deeper ranks help, usually. The rear rankers panic will always be less than those ahead, but their threshold to flee is lower because they can.
This is funny Jaroslav, but I just realized that you are the reason I wrote my book! Not like guys like you, but you. A couple of years ago I got a notice that my name came up on a TW thread. It was your presentation of Mathew's book that made me send out a call to my peeps as to why no one had shot down what to many of us was obvious baloney. You may not know that many of us on RAT told him he was going wrong back in the day. I realized then that those of us who knew better had a duty to correct the misinformation and Fred Ray and I finally pulled the trigger on writing a book. So if what I am posting here makes you question what you currently believe at all, then I have done my job. Note that I am not saying I am all correct (I have to present it that way for arguments sake), there is so much we don't know. But I do hope to balance some of the notions that are out there.
